Nikon 70-200 f 2.8 vr i or tamron 70-200 DI VC

[ToorboCharge]

Hey everyone ok i need some help I shoot landscape, and automobile portraits. Usually my friends and I go out to do photoshoots of our vehicles. But anyways The gear I currently have is Nikon D600 w/ nikon 24-70 f 2.8. Now my 1st question is since i shoot landscape and automobile portraits would the 70-200 f 2.8 lens be ideal to have for these types of photography (the photoshoots we go on are at night).

and my second question is, what lens do you recommend Tamron 70-200 f 2.8 DI vc or nikon 70-200 f 2.8 vr i, since they are around the same price. also could you state the reasons?

 

[Mach0]

Nikon.

 

[ToorboCharge]

Nikon.

lol sorry i failed to add "and why" to the second question my fault

 

[tirediron]

I'm not sure that I would use a 70-200 for landscape or automotive work, at least not generally. For landscape, wider primes are usually preferred, and for automotive work, a wide zoom, often the lens of choice. That said, the Nikkor 70-200 is an outstanding lens, and based on build-quality, IQ, focusing speed, etc, I would DEFINITELY recommend the Nikkor over the Tamron.

 

[Mach0]

lol sorry i failed to add "and why" to the second question my fault

I've shot with it. I love the nikon.

 

[Mach0]

I'm not sure that I would use a 70-200 for landscape or automotive work, at least not generally. For landscape, wider primes are usually preferred, and for automotive work, a wide zoom, often the lens of choice. That said, the Nikkor 70-200 is an outstanding lens, and based on build-quality, IQ, focusing speed, etc, I would DEFINITELY recommend the Nikkor over the Tamron.

+1

 

[ToorboCharge]

oh i was talking about the new tamron 70-200 if anyone has any info on it?

 

[sleist]

The VR1 is a nice lens, but has awful corners on FX. I own the VR1 and use it with a D90 and a D700. For my subject matter, the corners don't matter and the VR1 is wonderful on DX.
I would choose the VR2 or something else if landscape was the primary use with an FX body.

 

[Pallycow]

tamron makes fine lenses for the cost. not knocking them, I use one for my portrait lens 'cause I could not afford the canon glass.

however, having said that, if you can afford it, always go with the nikon or canon glass...its better, in all aspects. so no point in being very detailed about it really.

 

[mitchota]

Tirediron is right about the lens length - generally cars and landscapes are shot with wider lenses. Since it seems like you're looking into f/2.8 zoom glass, you may want to look at the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 or the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. It does depend on how much money you're willing to spend -- the 14-24 is close to $2,000 and the Tokina is $700.

I can vouch for the older Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 because I have one, but I use it for portraits of people and for some windsurfing shots when I make it down to the beach. If you check out the YT channel of ThatNikonGuy (the owner of the video Mach0 linked), he did a review of the newer VC version and was very impressed with it. I have no doubt it is a good lens -- I would rather have Nikon glass, but obviously money isn't an unlimited commodity and 3rd party glass has been getting better recently, so I'm feeling that it is a viable option for those of us who have to work within a stricter budget.

 

[Tailgunner]

I'm still very much an amateur but I would use that Nikon 24-70 on landscapes and cars before I used a 70-200mm.

 

[TheLost]

The Nikon all the way.. Its built better... AF is faster (the new Tamron is better.. but still not Nikon fast).. When people say the V1 isn't good on FX they are comparing it to the newer V2. For image quality only the V2 is better when it comes to 70-200's.

I own the Nikon 70-200 v1. I've used the V2 many times. I've owned the Sigma 70-200 and rented/borrowed the older Tamron 70-200 on occasion.

I would also 2nd the choice of a 24-70 for shooting cars.

 

[greybeard]

If you already have the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 I would think that you would be disappointed with anything other than the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. I had a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for a while and because of the coating and general lens design, the WB was pretty different from my Nikon lenses which I didn't like. The combination of Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 is pretty hard to beat.

 

[ToorboCharge]

the reason why i dont use the 14-24 for cars is due to the distortion.
Also the 24-70 is already at a wide focal length, at times when I am a far away from the subject the zoom is not enough, and also I dont enjoy cropping, the perspectives are different when zoomed in/up close as compared to cropping.

I enjoy taking portraiture as well.

The Nikon all the way.. Its built better... AF is faster (the new Tamron is better.. but still not Nikon fast).. When people say the V1 isn't good on FX they are comparing it to the newer V2. For image quality only the V2 is better when it comes to 70-200's.

I own the Nikon 70-200 v1. I've used the V2 many times. I've owned the Sigma 70-200 and rented/borrowed the older Tamron 70-200 on occasion.

I would also 2nd the choice of a 24-70 for shooting cars.

my apologies, but as in, "2nd the choice" do you mean you'd pick the 24-70 as well or not consider it?
Also thank you for informing me the difference from tamron, v1 and v2 that was the comparison i was looking for

And thank you everyone! for your responses!

 

[BRN1]

I got the Nikon 70-200 2.8. It broke the bank but I have NO regrets. So far I am impressed with every picture taken. Focus is fast and even works good in low light without focus assist. (d7000).
I had the same question as yours a while back. With help from folks on here and the old adage, you get what you pay for, i went with Nikon. I have not looked back.
And I believe you will be just as happy as me if you get the Nikon.
Good Luck.